On 07/15/2013 VAHE TAMAMINAN filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ASHOUT MARKARIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOHN P. DOYLE, RALPH C. HOFER and LAURA A. MATZ. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles, California
JOHN P. DOYLE
RALPH C. HOFER
LAURA A. MATZ
ROBERTS & ROBERTS
LAW OFFICES OF LESLIE J. HEDGES
HEDGES LESLIE JAY
MICHAEL D. ANDERSON
RODRIGUEZ LAW GROUP INC.
KAKOIAN HAKOB JACK
RODRIGUEZ PATRICIA RENEE
1/3/2014: Case Management Statement
5/2/2014: Minute Order
10/28/2014: Legacy Document
2/19/2015: Minute Order
9/15/2015: Minute Order
11/12/2015: Legacy Document
5/8/2017: Request For Copies
8/17/2017: Minute Order
10/12/2017: Minute Order
10/20/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
11/17/2017: Minute Order
1/26/2018: Legacy Document
2/13/2018: Minute Order
3/16/2018: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims
7/24/2018: Legacy Document
2/1/2019: Minute Order
2/8/2019: Minute Order
Hearingat 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing - Other (name extension)Read MoreRead Less
Hearingat 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)Read MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and ExaminationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing - Other (on Claim of Exemption filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Vahe Tamamian and Krikor Tamamian) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing - Other on Claim of Exemption filed on behalf of Plai...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (Debtor's Examination); Filed by Vahe Tamaminan (Plaintiff); Krikor Tamamian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination (of Judgment Debtor, Ashout Markarian Continued from 03/28/19) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of Hearing on Claim of Exemption); Filed by Vahe Tamaminan (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption; Filed by Vahe Tamaminan (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Vahe Tamaminan (Plaintiff); Krikor Tamamian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Issued; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
DocketLis Pendens, Notice of; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause (re trial court delay reduction act ); Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Vahe Tamaminan (Plaintiff); Krikor Tamamian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC060970 Hearing Date: October 25, 2019 Dept: NCD
Case No: EC 060970
Case Name: Tamamian, et al. v. Markarian, et al.
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
[CCP §§706.051, 706.124]
Moving Party: Defendant/Judgment debtor Ani Markarian
Responding Party: Plaintiffs/Judgment creditors Vahe Tamamian and Krikor Tamamian
Exemption from enforcement of judgment by unspecified method
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiffs Vahe Tamaminan and Krikor Tamamian allege that in an underlying action plaintiffs brought against defendant Ashout Markarian, which was determined pursuant to binding arbitration, plaintiffs were issued an award by the arbitrator on June 17, 2010. On December 7, 2010, plaintiffs’ petition to confirm the award was heard, and the award was entered as judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant Ashout Markarian in the sum of $248, 548.37.
On February 16, 2011, defendant and judgment debtor Ashout Markarian filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. On May 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed an adversary proceeding for non-dischargeability of the debt in the bankruptcy action. On January 4, 2012, judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant Ashout Markarian was entered in the bankruptcy proceeding, in the amount of $248,548.37. This judgment is now final.
Plaintiffs allege that on May 21, 2010, defendant Ashout Markarian executed a Quitclaim deed of the family residence in favor of his wife defendant Ani Markarian, which was recorded on August 6, 2010. Plaintiffs allege that this transfer was an attempt by defendants to hide and shield Ashout’s assets, in an attempt to hinder, delay and defraud plaintiffs in the collection of their claim against Ashout.
The complaint seeks that the transfer be declared void to the extent necessary to satisfy the judgment, plus interest, that the property be attached, that defendant Ani Markarian be restrained from disposing of the property, that a constructive trust be imposed on the property, and awards of general, special and punitive damages.
On February 13, 2018, the matter came on for court trial. The court noted that the answers of defendants Ashout Markarian and Ani Markarian had been previously stricken, and defendants were not present. The court ordered that the transfer from defendant Ashout Markarian to defendant Ani Markarian of property at 1098 North Hill Avenue in Pasadena be annulled and declared void as to the plaintiffs to the extent necessary to satisfy the judgment of plaintiffs in the sum of $248,546.27, plus interest thereon of $178,749.11 through February 13, 2018, and also ordered that defendant Ani Markarian be restrained from disposing of or encumbering the property, and that the property be held in constructive trust. Plaintiffs were awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $44,500.
This matter was originally heard on August 2, 2019. The court had not received the Claim of Exemption itself, only a single page of what was evidently submitted to the Sheriff’s office. The court did not receive a declaration or financial statement, when a financial statement was refenced in the opposition papers.
The matter was continued to September 27, 2019 as follows:
“Hearing on claim of exemption is continued 30 days to September 27, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to CCP § 703.580(c) for the receipt of evidence concerning the claim. Claimant Ani Markarian is ordered to submit a fully completed Financial Statement Form, supported by a declaration, along with supporting documentation by September 13, 2019. Claimant is ordered to include in the submission and Financial Statement Form all items identified as missing in the Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption and file these items with court by September 13, 2019. Any supplemental opposition by plaintiff/judgment creditor must be filed with the court by September 20, 2019.
Courtesy copies are to be provided to the court on the day of the supplemental filing ordered above. Service of all supplemental filings by email, fax or same day delivery.”
On September 12, 2019, the court received a spiral bound document entitled “Exhibit List,” which was evidently submitted by judgment debtor, but was not efiled, and was not accompanied by a proof of service.
The court at the hearing published its detailed tentative ruling, and continued the matter a final time to this date. The court order provides:
“Court informs Judgment Debtor Ani Markarian that she must file a Declaration re: Income and Expenses and organize her documents to enable the Court to make a determination.
Court directs Ani Markarian to seek legal assistance.
Court orders Judgment Debtor to serve and file her Supplemental Declaration re: Income by 10/11/2019 with courtesy copies to chambers on the date of filing.
Judgment Creditor to serve and file his reply by 10/18/2019 with courtesy copies to chambers concurrently with his filing.”
The court’s tentative ruling noted the following concerns:
“It appears that claimant Ani Markarian may not have served on the judgment creditors all documents which were received by the court but not filed on ecourt. The court is also concerned that the information received by the court did not include an updated and complete financial statement form, a declaration under penalty of perjury as to all necessary facts to show income and expenses in this matter, and will require that a further showing by claimant include:
An explanation as to what asset is being levied, and in what sum, including any details concerning a wage garnishment, if applicable.
A status update on the home facing foreclosure, and the effect of recent events on any claim of exemption.
Details concerning claimed dependents, such as age and income.
Evidence concerning current marital status and confirming $1,300 is paid monthly from Anoush Markarian as income.
Clearer explanation of cash on hand, checking, savings, and credit union account balances, which appear significant, and the value of vehicles, personal property, and real estate equity.
A current estimate of monthly expenses, by reference to supporting documentation, such as the submitted utilities bills, which shall be by declaration under penalty of perjury.
A declaration of debts owed, and details concerning the claimed student loan.
Each exemption should be claimed by reference to a specific statute.
Judgment debtor has filed a Declaration (but did not submit courtesy copies), with proof of service, and the file shows that on October 15, 2019, a Notice of Limited Scope Representation was filed by an attorney indicating the attorney and Ani Markarian have an agreement that limited scope representation will be provided at the hearing on October 25, 2019.
The court will consider this evidence, and any opposition, which has not been filed, and conduct a hearing on the matter. Specifically, it appears that if plaintiff is not planning to use the amount in the account levied to avoid a foreclosure sale, the funds may be subject to levy. It will also be discussed if the funds should be ordered to be used to protect the home evidently held in constructive trust for the judgment creditors. It will also be discussed if defendant should file for bankruptcy and whether plaintiff should seek a sale of the house as a judgment creditor to satisfy the judgment from the proceeds of the sale of the house. These alternatives would be offered instead of a wage garnishment.
It appears that there is also a wage garnishment at issue, and judgment debtor has offered to allow $150 per month from her wages to be garnished. This should be discussed at the hearing, along with the above issues. It also appears that no Financial Form has been submitted, as evidently an attorney advised the judgment debtor to submit draft bankruptcy forms on income and expenses. The court may find that without such a form, the burden on the claim of exemption is not met.
Hearing on claim of exemption to be conducted by the court.
Claim of exemption is granted in part. The court exempts from levy the funds being held and orders judgment debtor to direct those funds to avoiding the foreclosure sale scheduled for December of 2019.
With respect to wage garnishment, the court finds that if it were the court to disallow items claimed which do not appear “necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor’s family supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor…” such as car payments ($550), student loans ($50) and credit card payments ($100), the amount left subject to garnishment would be $4,600 (expenses), less these sums, or $3,900, with income of $4,420, so $520 a month. The judgment debtor offers a sum of $150 per month. This issue will be discussed at the hearing, but the court is inclined to order a wage garnishment of the $150.00 per month.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases